Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. No, I will not, please. I appreciate the man, he is a friend of mine, and I do not have any ill will towards him, but I just do not want to yield at this point. Would I suggest this amendment is about politics? I could not suggest this amendment is about politics. But here is what we have to do. We have to think of the reality of it. We are trying to make Government work. When you are sending out $60-some billion in checks, you want to make sure they go to the people they are supposed to go to, and you want to know that the people know this is happening and what they are supposed to do with it. Some suggest we should have the notices, but the wording should be changed. As stated earlier, I believe the wording is important to better inform taxpayers. Further, to rewrite and reprint the notice will cost millions of dollars and delay the notices by weeks. Delay would undermine the whole point of the notice: To better inform the people prior to checks being issued. Remember, you want to get the checks out on time because of the stimulus benefit that comes from this. That is not just my saying this as a Republican because you want to remember, the last week of March people on the other side of the aisle said we ought to have an immediate tax rebate to help the economy. So that is something we both agreed ought to be done. This notice, the Treasury Department informs me, will actually be cost-effective. If there is no notice, the IRS will be flooded with calls and will not be able to perform other valuable and important activities. The language regarding notices is in the conference report because of concerns about the impact of issuing checks on IRS operations. Finance Committee staff has met with the Treasury Department several times to ensure that the notice and check effort is performed with minimal trouble. In addition, Senator Baucus and I have asked the GAO to oversee the notice and check effort to ensure it is properly managed. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Hollings amendment. The Hollings amendment would repeal the retroactive marginal rate cuts enacted on June 7th of this year. That is barely over 1 month ago. My opposition to the amendment is based on both procedural and substantive grounds. On the first problem the amendment's procedural problems, it is clear that, if adopted, this amendment will cause the underlying supplemental appropriations bill to violate the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution. If sent to the House, the bill would certainly be ``blue slipped.'' So, this amendment, if adopted, kills the supplemental. The second problem is the substance of the amendment. This amendment would repeal all of the retroactive marginal rate reductions in the recently passed tax bill. Those rate cuts are based principally on the new ten percent bracket for the first $6,000 of income for single taxpayers and $12,000 of income for married couples. The retroactive new ten percent bracket is the basis for the advance refund checks of $300 for a single person and $600 for a married couple. The Hollings amendment stops these checks dead. A vote for the Hollings amendment is a way to say no to American taxpayers who now expect to receive refund checks. A vote for the Hollings amendment is a vote against the stimulus in the tax bill we just passed.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me take advantage of that time. I will take advantage of the opportunity to say, first of all, that all of these notices are already printed and ready to go. Do you want to throw that money away? No. 2, it is only part of the story that there is a message going out to tell people they are going to get a check and to expect it. There is also a notice going out to 32 million people that they are not going to get a check, and that is a very important notice to go out, so that the IRS is not bothered by phone calls wondering whether or not they are going to get a check. I think it is very important that we do this right. I ask for the defeat of the Schumer amendment and I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are hearing a great deal about politics in the debate regarding this amendment of the Senator from New York. We hear the notices in the mail to inform taxpayers of the rebate checks are somehow about ``politics.'' We hear the language used in a notice is about politics. Let me assure that the only thing that is about politics is the amendment before the Senate. I make very clear the notices are being issued, being sent by Congress, because we gave that direction in the legislation we passed. I read from the conference report of the recently passed tax cut bill. Page 127 of the report says: The conferees anticipate that the IRS will send notices to most taxpayers, approximately one month after enactment. The notices will inform taxpayers the computation of their checks and the approximate date by which they can expect to receive their check. This information should decrease the number of telephone calls made by taxpayers to the IRS inquiring when their check will be issued. That is a quote from the conference report of the Congress of the United States, directing the Treasury Department to do what has been labeled as pure politics. This is a statement of the conference report. That is why these notices are being issued. We are seeking to reduce confusion of taxpayers and minimize the burden on IRS employees. That is why the National Treasury Employees Union, the union that negotiates with the Treasury Department, representing those employees, supports the issuance of the letters being criticized. I read from the last paragraph of the letter I have received from the National Taxpayers Union: On behalf of the employees of the IRS who are charged with implementing the decisions of Congress with regard to the tax code, I urge you to oppose efforts to cut funding for the mailing of a notification to taxpayers with regard to their tax rebates. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I do not think I will yield. The last time I yielded to you on the bankruptcy bill I did not get through my speech. I want to finish my speech and then if you want to ask me a question, I will do it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, these concerns about the impact on services at the IRS are very real. The newsletter, Tax Notes, reported on June 9, 2001, that when Minnesota issued rebate checks, the U.S. West Company had to cut off phone service to the tax agency in Minnesota because the volume of calls brought down the system for the entire Minnesota State capital exchange. In addition, notices are important to prevent taxpayers being subject to con games. The USA Today newspaper reported on July 5, 2001, that taxpayers are receiving solicitations from con artists offering to calculate their refund for $14.95. These letters being found fault with will go far in preventing frauds and cons such as reported in USA Today. Some want no notices at all sent, and some want the words of the notice changed. Why are they upset? Because the letters start out by mentioning that we, the Congress, passed a bill that cuts taxes--the bill that provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes and was passed by the Congress, in fact, and was signed by the President of the United States. That is the only way you increase or decrease taxes. It is not done by some magic wand being waved by somebody in Washington, DC. But this comes as a shock, supposedly, to my colleagues. Some people are a little too busy with their lives to be thumbing through the Congressional Record after work, like maybe we do, but our constituents don't do this. So this letter provides a little overview and guidance, so people have some contact as to what the letter discusses. It should be clear this is not the first time the President by name has been mentioned in some IRS notice. For example, a little less than 2 years ago the IRS sent out a notice mentioning President Clinton. Can you believe that? They sent out a notice mentioning President Clinton. I have searched the Congressional Record in vain to find any complaints from any Senator about that specific notice. Also, if this notice were only about politics, why would the administration also send out a notice to 32 million taxpayers, informing them they will not receive a refund check? That hardly seems a political thing to do. It is said we often find our own faults in others.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Schumer amendment. Earlier today, we had a 3-94 vote on the Hollings amendment. You will remember the vote of 3-94 earlier today when the Senate rejected the Hollings amendment on repealing the tax decrease of a month ago. I think that was a vote of this body saying send the checks. The conference report on that same bill directed the IRS, for very good reasons, to issue these notices that the Schumer amendment wants to repeal. We have had the Treasury Employees Union saying send out a notice to inform the taxpayers so that the Treasury employees would be able to do their job well, without always being on the phone informing the taxpayers of what their tax refund might consist. So if this amendment would pass, it would keep the taxpayers in the dark. It would help the scam artists preying on the poor and elderly, as we have been told before. It would play havoc with the important work of the IRS. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time. There are three things to remember: Remember that the union members working this issue for the Treasury Department to make sure the Government's work is done right and done on time said it is very important that these notices be mailed out. That letter is a matter of record and is printed in the Record. No. 2, remember that Congress ordered these letters to be sent. It is a conference report from which I have already quoted. But remember we said that. No. 3, these letters are already printed and in the envelopes. There was a lot of labor put into this process. There was a lot of effort put into it. If you want to waste that money, you waste that money by voting for this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 6 minutes, or the remainder of my time, to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I will not consume all the time that has been allocated to our side. I will not be here to allocate other time, so anybody who wants to speak in opposition to the Hollings amendment is free to yield themselves what time I might have remaining. Even though Senator Hollings has not discussed his amendment--he is going to do that very shortly--I have strong opposition to his amendment because his amendment would repeal the retroactive marginal rate cuts enacted on June 7, this year, barely 1 month ago. My opposition to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina is based both on procedural and substantive grounds. First, procedural problems with the amendment: It is a tax amendment. As a tax amendment, it obviously falls within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The bill before the Senate is an appropriations bill, not a finance bill. As the senior Finance Committee Republican, I must oppose this tax amendment on an appropriations bill. Furthermore, if Senator Hollings were to prevail, this appropriations bill would become a Senate-originated revenue bill and, as such, it would be blue-slipped when sent to the other body. In other words, this amendment, if added to the underlying supplemental appropriations bill, would kill the appropriations bill we are now considering, a bill that is so badly needed. As bad as this amendment is procedurally, it is even worse substantively. This amendment would repeal all the retroactive marginal rate reductions in a recently passed tax bill. Those tax rate cuts are based principally on the new 10-percent bracket for the first $6,000 of income for single taxpayers and $12,000 of income for married taxpayers. The retroactive, new tax percent bracket is the basis, then, for the advanced refund checks of $300 for single people and $600 for married couples that will soon by mailed out by the Treasury Department starting July 23. So the Hollings amendment, then, would stop these checks dead in their tracks. A vote for the Hollings amendment is a way to say no to American taxpayers who now expect to receive the refund checks. These checks and the other retroactive rate cuts are, of course, a stimulus in the tax legislation that we just enacted. Just when the economy is slowing down and when the economy, then, is in need of a stimulus, the Hollings amendment would pull the rug out from under our attempt to stimulate it. Frankly, I cannot think of a proposal more damaging to the potential return to economic growth than the amendment on which we will soon vote. Soon, in a separate speech, I am going to discuss in some depth the tax legislation just enacted. Let me point out one important fact for one to chew on in the meantime. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal taxes are at an all-time high of 20.6 percent of the economy. That is higher than taxes were even in World War II. Individual income taxes are at record levels as a percentage of the GDP. The tax legislation returns this overpayment--which is dragging down American workers, investors, businesses, and collectively the American economy--to the people. What the Hollings amendment really says is, return taxes to their record levels. The Hollings amendment says high taxes are no problem and should be ignored in a slowing economy. Think about this, my fellow Senators. This amendment, in effect, raises taxes at a time we have a slowing economy. Madam President, I yield the floor and thank Senator Hollings for yielding to me to make these remarks at this point ahead of him.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to waive the point of order under section 904 of the Budget Act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there will be a point of order made. If a point of order is made, I am obviously going to waive it. I make clear my motion to strike would essentially allow us to replace the revenues taken from the Finance Committee's jurisdiction with general funds that are still available in the off-budget surplus. All Finance Committee members, Republicans and Democrats alike, including my respected chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, should beware, a vote against my motion is a vote for weakening the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. If your membership on the Finance Committee means anything, you need to vote in favor of my motion to strike.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I know the chairman is going to raise a point of order, and I want 1 minute to respond to the point of order.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 1 minute. A point was made last night that extending the user fees in section 502 has no impact on the U.S. Customs Service budget. That is baloney. If it has no impact, why is it in the bill in the first place? Obviously, it is in the bill because it has an impact on budget scoring. Once CBO scores these funds against the Patients' Bill of Rights, these funds cannot be used by the U.S. Customs Service for customs modernization. These funds then are no longer available to offset the costs of customs modernization. We will have to find funds somewhere else; perhaps we can get them from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The U.S. Customs Service recognizes this problem: Any scoring which would limit in any way the ability to fund or offset customs activity would likely cause a critical funding shortfall in the Customs Service. I think it is very clear.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to discuss my vote on the Criag amendment that it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate act to expand access to Medical Savings Accounts. I commend Senator Craig for offering this amendment. I support expanding access to MSAs. I recently introduced S. 1067, the Medical Savings Account Availability Act of 2001, with my colleague from new Jersey, Senator Torricelli. My support for MSAs is long standing. Senator Torricelli and I introduced in the last Congress a comparable bill to expand access to Medical Savings Accounts. I think we will improve access to MSAs with the support of Senator Craig and many other Senators, particularly on my side, who I know want to see MSAs within the reach of everyone. As my colleagues know, I have argued during this debate that tax material should not be included in this bill. I do not consider this amendment a tax amendment because, if adopted, it would not have the effect of changing tax law. Earlier in this debate, I sought and received agreement from the Chairman of the Finance Committee that health related tax matters will be considered at a markup of the Finance Committee in the near future. I look forward to pursuing this issue at that time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the years, I have been in the forefront of promoting alternative dispute resolution, (ADR), mechanisms to encourage alternatives to litigation when disputes arise. Such legislation includes the permanent use of ADR by Federal agencies. Last Congress, we also passed legislation to authorize Federal court- annexed arbitration. These statutes are based, in part, on the premise that arbitration should be voluntary rather than mandatory. While arbitration often serves an important function as an efficient alternative to court, some trade offs must be considered by both parties, such a limited judicial review and less formal procedures regarding discovery and rules of evidence. When mandatory binding arbitration is forced upon a party, for example when it is placed in a boiler-plate agreement, it deprives the weaker party the opportunity to elect any other forum. As a proponent of arbitration I believe it is critical to ensure that the selection of arbitration is voluntary and fair. Unequal bargaining power exists in contracts between automobile and truck dealers and their manufacturers. The manufacturer drafts the contract and presents it to dealers with no opportunist to negotiate. Increasingly, these manufacturers are including compulsory binding arbitration in their agreements, and dealers are finding themselves with no choice but to accept it. If they refuse to sign the contract they have no franchise. This clause then binds the dealer to arbitration as the exclusive procedure for resolving any dispute. The purpose of arbitration is to reduce costly, time-consuming litigation, not to force a party to an adhesion contract to waive access to judicial or administrative forums for the pursuit of rights under State law. I am extremely concerned with this industry practice that conditions the granting or keeping of motor vehicle franchises on the acceptance of mandatory and binding arbitration. While several States have enacted statutes to protect weaker parties in ``take it or leave it'' contracts and attempted to prevent hits type of inequitable practice, these State laws have been held to conflict with the federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In 1925, when the FAA was enacted to make arbitration agreements enforceable in Federal courts, it did not expressly provide for preemption of State law. Nor is there any legislative history to indicate Congress intended to occupy the entire field of arbitration. However, in 1984 the Supreme Court interpreted the FAA to preempt state law in Southland Corporation v. Keating. This, State laws that protect weaker parties from being forced to accept arbitration and to waive State rights, such as Iowa's law prohibiting manufacturers from requiring dealers to submit to mandatory binding arbitration, are preempted by the FAA. With mandatory binding arbitration agreements becoming increasingly common in motor vehicle franchise agreements, now is the time to eliminate the ambiguity in the FAA statute. The purpose of the legislation we are introducing is to ensure that in disputes between manufacturers and dealers, both parties must voluntarily elect binding arbitration. This approach would continue to recognize arbitration as a valuable alternative to court, but would provide an option to pursue other forums such as administrative bodies that have been established in a majority of States, including Iowa, to handle dealer/manufacturer disputes. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that parties will not be forced into binding arbitration and thereby lose important statutory rights. I am confident that given its many advantages arbitration will often be elected. But it is essential for public policy reasons and basic fairness that both parties to this type of contract have the freedom to make their own decisions based on the circumstances of the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to address this unfair franchise practice.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the years, I have been in the forefront of promoting alternative dispute resolution, (ADR), mechanisms to encourage alternatives to litigation when disputes arise. Such legislation includes the permanent use of ADR by Federal agencies. Last Congress, we also passed legislation to authorize Federal court- annexed arbitration. These statutes are based, in part, on the premise that arbitration should be voluntary rather than mandatory. While arbitration often serves an important function as an efficient alternative to court, some trade offs must be considered by both parties, such a limited judicial review and less formal procedures regarding discovery and rules of evidence. When mandatory binding arbitration is forced upon a party, for example when it is placed in a boiler-plate agreement, it deprives the weaker party the opportunity to elect any other forum. As a proponent of arbitration I believe it is critical to ensure that the selection of arbitration is voluntary and fair. Unequal bargaining power exists in contracts between automobile and truck dealers and their manufacturers. The manufacturer drafts the contract and presents it to dealers with no opportunist to negotiate. Increasingly, these manufacturers are including compulsory binding arbitration in their agreements, and dealers are finding themselves with no choice but to accept it. If they refuse to sign the contract they have no franchise. This clause then binds the dealer to arbitration as the exclusive procedure for resolving any dispute. The purpose of arbitration is to reduce costly, time-consuming litigation, not to force a party to an adhesion contract to waive access to judicial or administrative forums for the pursuit of rights under State law. I am extremely concerned with this industry practice that conditions the granting or keeping of motor vehicle franchises on the acceptance of mandatory and binding arbitration. While several States have enacted statutes to protect weaker parties in ``take it or leave it'' contracts and attempted to prevent hits type of inequitable practice, these State laws have been held to conflict with the federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In 1925, when the FAA was enacted to make arbitration agreements enforceable in Federal courts, it did not expressly provide for preemption of State law. Nor is there any legislative history to indicate Congress intended to occupy the entire field of arbitration. However, in 1984 the Supreme Court interpreted the FAA to preempt state law in Southland Corporation v. Keating. This, State laws that protect weaker parties from being forced to accept arbitration and to waive State rights, such as Iowa's law prohibiting manufacturers from requiring dealers to submit to mandatory binding arbitration, are preempted by the FAA. With mandatory binding arbitration agreements becoming increasingly common in motor vehicle franchise agreements, now is the time to eliminate the ambiguity in the FAA statute. The purpose of the legislation we are introducing is to ensure that in disputes between manufacturers and dealers, both parties must voluntarily elect binding arbitration. This approach would continue to recognize arbitration as a valuable alternative to court, but would provide an option to pursue other forums such as administrative bodies that have been established in a majority of States, including Iowa, to handle dealer/manufacturer disputes. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that parties will not be forced into binding arbitration and thereby lose important statutory rights. I am confident that given its many advantages arbitration will often be elected. But it is essential for public policy reasons and basic fairness that both parties to this type of contract have the freedom to make their own decisions based on the circumstances of the case. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to address this unfair franchise practice.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would rather wait. Hopefully, they will do it right now.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to speak specifically to what one company wrote: The merchandise processing fee has no place in this debate. The fee will not be viewed on the merits in this proceeding, but is instead being used--cynically--as a ``pay-for'' for a totally unrelated program. Obviously, the totally unrelated program is the Patients' Bill of Rights that is before us. Our experience today--in other words, how we handle this issue of customs user fees today--will only hurt us in our deliberation of what ought to be done to expedite and make more efficient entry into our country. It is going to hurt us when that policy debate comes up sometime down the road--weeks, months, but sometime. Customs modernization is a very important priority. My point is that there are important Customs modernization issues that should no longer be ignored. Let's not have a rush to pay for this Patients' Bill of Rights today and blind us towards the real public policy questions we have on the Customs Service and their problems tomorrow. Are you concerned about drugs at our borders? Are you concerned about illegal transshipment of textiles, import restrictions on steel and lumber, and backup of trucks at our borders? If you vote for extending fees, there will be no committee consideration if Customs is using the fees for these or other Congressional priorities. I would like to tell you that extending these fees will definitely have an impact on what we are able to do or not to do about modernization of the Customs agency and its operations around the borders of our country, even in the interior of the country where we have Customs operations. I would like to read what the acting Customs Commissioner had to say about this. He wrote on June 20, this year: Any scoring which would limit in any way the ability to fund or offset Customs activities would likely cause-- And it is highlighted-- a critical funding shortfall for the Customs Service. Experience a critical funding shortfall when you want to get in and out of Chicago with some Customs operations and people are complaining because it takes so long to get it done because of a shortage of personnel and not having the technical equipment that ought to be there to help efficient operation. Then you know that maybe you made the wrong decision when you took $7 billion out of Customs to do this. Also, I have a statement, which was submitted for the Record, from the President himself, dated June 2001, clearly opposing section 502 of the bill. I would like to raise one other issue, and that is it is not at all clear that using Customs user fees to offset revenue is consistent with the World Trade Organization rules. Think about that. We are making a decision to take $7 billion out of Customs user fees under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, and we may be doing this in a way that does not meet our obligation under the World Trade Organization. Under that organization, Customs fees are to be used as payments for Customs services, not as a source of general revenue to the Federal Government. In a sense, as we would say to our constituents back home, you pay a gas tax, and we use the gas tax for transportation, to build highways. When people pay Customs fees, they pay those Customs fees for facilitating entry of product into the country and the policing of that entry of product into the country. A fee levied for a certain purpose ought to be used for that purpose or it might violate the WTO because it should not be a source of general revenue any more than taking money from the gas tax and putting it into the general fund of the United States. Here is what the Customs Service writes on this issue. The merchandise processing fee is a fee that is paid by importers for the processing of merchandise by the Customs Service. Directing the funds collected from the fee for something other than Customs' operations could pose GATT interpretation issues. While it is not clear that a WTO case would arise or that a challenge would be successful, it seems to me that this is a warning bell that should certainly be heard. No Senator should vote against this motion to strike unless they are prepared to face the possibility of a WTO challenge and take responsibility accordingly. We should strike this provision from the bill. Before blindly supporting section 502, we should have time to consider its broader implications. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike. Turning to the other provision of their bill that my amendment strikes, section 503, that would delay payments to Medicare contractors by one day thereby shifting $235 million in Medicare part B spending from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 is simply a budget gimmick. I am troubled by this provision because it comes within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee and also because we are trying to work to make Medicare a better program, not do things to harm it. First, I point out to my colleagues that, again, the Finance Committee has jurisdiction, not the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. It is the Finance Committee that authorizes and overseas the Medicare Program and the Federal agency that runs it, now known as the Center for Medicare Services. It is the Finance Committee and not the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that is in the best position to know how changes in the Medicare Program, such as this one-day payment delay in section 503 of this bill that will affect our senior citizens, will affect our health care providers and will affect the integrity of the Medicare trust fund. With all due respect, when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid and other Federal entitlement programs, it seems terribly ridiculous to ignore the committee that has the very expertise in these programs, meaning the Senate Finance Committee. The second reason that I am proposing to strike the Medicare payment delay in section 503 of the bill is that the delay itself, which may not seem serious to some, could actually have consequences for Medicare contractors and providers. Delaying payments by one day and moving them into the next fiscal year just to finance this bill is fuzzy math, to say the least. But it unfairly subjects the already fragile Medicare Program and its health care contractors to accounting disruptions and to administrative uncertainties. Medicare providers already have it hard enough just dealing with the Medicare Program in the first place. They are overwhelmed by paperwork, confused by conflicting regulations, and frequently left hearing that ``the check is in the mail.'' Can you imagine the Federal Government saying ``the check is in the mail'' when it comes to timely payments of their reimbursements? Subjecting those providers to any additional delay, even if just for a short period of time, is simply unfair. We need to make it easier for providers to do business with Medicare. Think about it. No one wants to do business with late payers, and health care providers are no exception. Think about it for a minute. No one wants to do business with late payers, and health care providers are no exception. We should not be giving Medicare an additional opportunity to delay for one minute--let alone a longer period of time--their obligations to promptly pay providers. For the last 3 months, Senator Baucus and I have been working hard to develop a Medicare reform proposal that strengthens and improves the program by adding prescription drug coverage and making the entire benefit package more modern. Part of this bipartisan effort also includes an initiative to make Medicare more responsive and accountable to both seniors and providers. We want to send a message to providers that they will be treated fairly and professionally by Medicare. Unfortunately, the delay provision in section 503 does exactly the opposite. It sends an entirely wrong message and undercuts our bipartisan effort to make Medicare a better business partner for today's providers. For these reasons, I cannot support the inclusion of section 503 in this bill. Neither 502 nor 503 belong in this bill. They are both outside the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor Committee and a long way away from the subject of this debate, which is patients' rights. Both sections should be stricken from this bill entirely. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think three times during the debate on this bill I have been trying to make the point that bringing this bill to the floor usurped the consideration of the Senate Finance Committee of two provisions that are in the bill and another provision that ought to be in the bill that is not in the bill. My amendment today deals with striking sections 502 and 503. It is another way of my saying, as I tried to in an amendment 2 days ago on this legislation, to the Finance Committee, that people writing this legislation ought to keep their hands off subject matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. If people are writing a piece of legislation that comes out of Health, Education, Labor, they ought to find sources of revenue out of programs within their own jurisdiction to fund bills that they think up, rather than robbing another committee. That is basically what has happened. I am opposed to both provisions on jurisdictional grounds because they are within the control of the Finance Committee, not the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But I also want to make it very clear it is not just jurisdictional, I also have concerns about what it does to policy, dealing with customs on the one hand and Medicare on the other hand. I want to review each of these in turn. Section 502 of the bill extends the customs user fees from the year 2003 to 2011. This generates $7 billion over 8 years of the total revenue that it takes to fund this piece of legislation. When Congress authorized these customs user fees, the avowed purpose was to underwrite the costs of customs commercial operations. But today in this bill, the fees are not being used for customs. They are being used to offset the cost of the Patients' Bill of Rights to the tune of $7 billion. I think this is unacceptable and violates the comity that one committee ought to have towards the other. It also is unacceptable because when you have constituents who pay customs user fees for the purpose of having an efficient and effective operation of the Customs Service, so you can enter this country in an expeditious way, for those fees not to be used for what they were intended--for expedited entry to the country, to police illegal entry to the country, to police illegal drugs coming into the country, generally to make the customs agency's personnel more efficient and better able to do their job so the United States can be a sovereign nation protecting its borders the way it should--if these fees are extended, and I want to emphasize the word ``if,'' they should be extended in a thoughtful way, not as some budget trick to make the costs of this bill fit within the confines of the Federal budget. I am not the only one who thinks so. I have received numerous letters from companies, from associations that are very concerned about this-- Liz Claiborne, Inc., the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones, the Joint Industry Group, the National Retail Federation, the American Electronics Association, and also a memo from the U.S. Customs Service. They are all raising concerns because these are folks who pay this customs user fee, a fee that is meant to pay for bringing things into the country. They believe since the Customs Service is so outdated, so slow moving, not working in an expeditious way, this revenue ought to be used for the improvements in the customs operation that were anticipated when these fees were put in place. I ask unanimous consent these letters and memos be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.